- cross-posted to:
- humor@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- humor@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I have to say this is always my thought when I see those signs. “Road work ends” would convey what they mean in normal English.
Similarly the strange US habit of text on the ground being written bottom to top. I get what they intended, but I don’t get why, then they first saw the effect, they didn’t laugh and realize it didn’t work. There’s a road lane near me that says “BUSES NO” “TRUCKS NO” and I always picture someone disciplining a naughty bus.
Similarly the strange US habit of text on the ground being written bottom to top. I get what they intended, but I don’t get why, then they first saw the effect, they didn’t laugh and realize it didn’t work.
The text on the ground is written bottom up because the bottom is seen earlier in a moving vehicle, making reading it easier when in motion as the ‘bottom’ word is ‘first’ to the driver. This is more noticeable in cars that are lower to the ground, and they continue to use it because it does work.
Not all applications need to take vehicle motion into consideration, but they keep it for consistency.
I know why they did it, as I said. It’s obvious. But it doesn’t really pay off in practice.
I’ll repeat the comment I made in that thread:
Unironically, I support completely ceasing all road construction (even “just” repaving, let alone widening) until every street has been brought up to “complete streets” standard with proper sidewalks and bike lanes. Car drivers do not deserve more spending until cyclists and pedestrians are made first-class citizens!
start taxing trucks proportional to the wear they cause on public roads. doing so will supplement funding for repairing said roads as well as to encourage rail hauling instead of dangerous hulking vehicles on the same roads we have to commute on.
The larger vehicles tend to get worse mileage and thus pay more taxes on gasoline/diesel that are used for roads without the government needing to track mileage.
Electric cars, which are heavier than comparable ICE cars, throw a wrench in the fuel paying for roads concept.
Yes, but the increase in fuel cost per unit mass is not proportional to the increase in road wear, which is exponential and absolutely massive in commercial use. Hugely important fact that plays into my opinion that vehicle size should be taxed.
While this is a nice thought in theory, it breaks down as soon as you start actually thinking of it in practical terms.
- Some rural road that gets a few cars a day at best does not really need sidewalks and certainly does not need bike lanes.
- A road with potholes is more dangerous to pedestrians and bikers due to the potential for cars to lose control, or for drivers to swerve to miss a pothole and potentially endanger other travelers.
- Adding bike lanes and sidewalks is just impractical in a lot of areas. Where is that space coming from, when private property extends to the road edge currently? Are we just declaring eminent domain and taking 3-6 feet of everyone’s property frontage for this initiative? I’m sure that will be a very unpopular initiative. What about areas where buildings are too close to the street to allow for this? There’s just too many areas where it’s not practical or possible to do.
I’m all for phasing out cars in areas where it’s reasonable to do so, but your proposal just isn’t compatible with reality.
